Questions about aging technology

its all good. so it seems that we agree that people play with what they know to work best for them given the game that they play.

i did switch to the 2010 red star. dropped down a full once in weight which did require adjustment. it is a modern frame but has a tradional feel even though it is very light compared to the 'classics'. it is designed to be swung fast yet the plow through is there. again not like a classic but i had to look at my whole game and what i was doing. i even went back and took a bunch of lessons and participated in many many open drills to groove my new strokes and now i feel like its all going really well. in fact better than i was doing with the heavier frame.

change is never easy (when it comes to anything ) and one need's to be open to it. in a way - be like a kid once again! that was my approach and i am happy. more importantly after a period of adjustment and hard work, my game is better. that's my story and i am sticking to it! lol. happy hitting with whatever you use :)
 
TennisMaverick said:
Tennis players are very traditional; very stubborn; in-particular, tend to be very tied into being emotionally comfortable; and aren't accustomed to having to overcome adversity. It is an inbred club of predominately well-to-do people, whose standards of living are such that there is little need or want for anything. So little issues become extremely magnified. Become a volunteer at an event and in 10 minutes, you will begin to dislike most players, parents, and their entourage.

For example, it's almost impossible to buy a highly ranked junior a birthday or Xmas gift, when they already have credit cards, iPads, iPods, iPhones, etc., all since they were very young, if the product was available, and convertible BMW's the day they turn 17 and get their license. Since they only compete against other individuals like themselves, they just play; they don't have to overcome any obstacles, and, they don't have to play. At anytime, they can easily say, "I'm just going to start hanging with my friends, I can't deal with this anymore," and that comes from even top nationally or ITF ranked kids. When they turn pro, they still have the same mentality. "I'm working too hard and not getting the rewards. I can work for my father's buddy and make six-figures my first year."

The traveling, winning a little, losing a lot--which they didn't do as juniors, training, getting hurt, pressure to defend points, no girlfriend, etc., easily gets too much for many of these guys. That is why non-American players rule in ITF junior events and our pros have difficulty getting to the Final Eight of GS events. It is no surprise that over the past 35 years, all of our best players were either immigrants or born from immigrants--Sampras, Chang, Capriati, Agassi, the Mayer bros, Vitas, Seles, MaryJoe--or they were from working or middle class families--Serena/Venus, Connors, Chrissie, Blake, just to name a few. There are a few exceptions, such as Roddick, but his family will tell you that his ADD made him laser focused-in on tennis and incapable of sitting behind a school desk.

Bottom Line: Most players are too privileged; they don't have to put themselves through all of the uncomfortable crap. There is a low pain threshold. They expect only to train and to win. Period. Hardship and emotional stress isn't supposed to be in the picture; most can't take it. If you yell at a tennis player as a coach, like they do in other sports, you'll be out of a job. Tennis isn't boxing, football, basketball, or baseball, where many of these pros would be in jail or working in a Wal-Mart if it wasn't for them being a pro athlete. That's a very different type of desire and emotional make-up. If USTA Player Development wants to really develop players, they should deprive the kids of everything and make them make do, but our current culture of helicopter parents and coaches who don't want to lose a penny, will not hear of it.
Click to expand...
If thats how it is in the states I can see why US tennis is in decline. But that does not have anything to do with racquets. Around here the spoiled rich kids are the ones who change their frames several times a year. Europe is different because money doesnt buy you a shortcut, only skills count.
I have turned down several of these little spoiled brats and told the parents to find another coach for them. I had a kid who was very talented, but he screwed up his game by changing racquets every 2nd month, I told him over and over, then his father told me to minf my own business. I got a name and reputation as a good coach and works with some of the best juniors in my country, so I simply told the father to take his kid and leave and dont come back before the kid stopped screwing is game up on purpose. The better you are the more important it becomes to stick with the same frame. I understand that ppl test when a new edition of their main frame is released, for example if you used MGPP and test YTPP, its still very close to what you are using, but maybe you will like the new one a bit more and its an easy change. But to change to a completely different frame, weight, balance and SW surely messes your game up.
 
Last edited:
TennisMaverick said:
Dude...are you really that Charlie Brown? How the heck do you derive that idea from what I have written, or ever written, anywhere, or anytime?

All I can say is "WOW"; just....."WOW". You have my sympathy. If you're Christian, I hope that God loves you.

There really is no common frame of reference.

WOW!
Click to expand...

There you go, guess you got trouble with the memory!.
Religion is just the invisible friend of insecure humans and that category doesnt include me, sorry!
TennisMaverick said:
Yes and no.

The Wilson PWS added more material for more weight. Volkl's DNX and DC stiffens the area to resist the ball's impact, without the extra weight. This allows you to do more, with less. Hence, the lighter frame allows for fast racquet head acceleration, which is very much needed for the way tennis is played today. Any intellectually challenged wannabe tennis player who states that the newer technologies are sales gimmicks, obviously cannot play well enough to hit the shots that the newer tech allows for with very little work, which conversely, requires traditional frames users to be technically flawless--impossible to pull-off for every ball contact--to pull-off the same shots with much heavier frames.

I play with the PB 10 Mid. The London does not play well leaded heavily; it defeats the stick's inherent design qualities. My swing speeds are too long and slow to play with a lighter frame, and the ball speeds/quality from the players that I hit with have too much of a negative effect on a light racquet in my hands.

Since you're a B&Ter, where in the burbs do you play?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
big bang said:
There you go, guess you got trouble with the memory!.
Religion is just the invisible friend of insecure humans and that category doesnt include me, sorry!
Click to expand...

Any intellectually challenged wannabe tennis player who states that the newer technologies are sales gimmicks, obviously cannot play well enough to hit the shots that the newer tech allows for with very little work, which conversely, requires traditional frames users to be technically flawless--impossible to pull-off for every ball contact--to pull-off the same shots with much heavier frames.

Just to be clear - from that quote above, you got that TennisMaverick was saying that people who use older heavy frames are not good enough to use modern racquets? I'm trying to follow the arguments on both sides...
 
Last edited:
big bang said:
There you go, guess you got trouble with the memory!.
Religion is just the invisible friend of insecure humans and that category doesnt include me, sorry!
Click to expand...

You equate my statement as being the same as your statement regarding gimmick? Seriously? There is a serious communication gap. Again, you are totally misunderstanding what I said. I suspect that their is a deficiency either in your comprehension of complex English language skills, or again, a massive coding problem. You just have no clue as to what I'm saying. WOW!
 
"Any intellectually challenged wannabe tennis player who states that the newer technologies are sales gimmicks, obviously cannot play well enough to hit the shots that the newer tech allows for with very little work,"

You clearly say what the new gimmicks does for your game, and if someone claims otherwise they are just not good enough to take advantage of the gimmicks.. Pretty obvious!
 
If somone switches from an old PS or a POG to a 2011 racquet, what should they expect to gain? Consistency? Power? Control? I don't think anyone would deny that there is a ton of marketing BS going on(Blx vs. Kfactor?). That said, there IS a point where technology makes a leap. But, no one has said what that point is from a current perspective( 2006? 2001? 1996?). Because we all know the industry just wants to turn product. I'm no expert on the tennis racquet side, since I am just back playing again. But, having played golf for almost 40 years, I can tell you that most of the "new" 2011 clubs are no better than 2001 clubs, with the exception of drivers. Some clubs like putters and wedges can go back 45 years and be just as playable at a 2011 version. Sorry for the golf example, but just giving some perspective from another sport where the latest and greatest aren't really...
 
Hewex said:
If somone switches from an old PS or a POG to a 2011 racquet, what should they expect to gain? Consistency? Power? Control? I don't think anyone would deny that there is a ton of marketing BS going on(Blx vs. Kfactor?). That said, there IS a point where technology makes a leap. But, no one has said what that point is from a current perspective( 2006? 2001? 1996?). Because we all know the industry just wants to turn product. I'm no expert on the tennis racquet side, since I am just back playing again. But, having played golf for almost 40 years, I can tell you that most of the "new" 2011 clubs are no better than 2001 clubs, with the exception of drivers. Some clubs like putters and wedges can go back 45 years and be just as playable at a 2011 version. Sorry for the golf example, but just giving some perspective from another sport where the latest and greatest aren't really...
Click to expand...
I agree!, its funny how a company like Head comes up with a new revolutionary technology every 2nd year. If that tech was that revolutionary why dump it after 2 years?.. The only reason is to fool ppl into buying new equipment!. If Intelligence was that good, the LM frames would have had it, same goes for flex point, microgel and Youtek. The gimmicks might feel different from pure graphite frames, but does it make you play better?.. No!.
Ppl might say that Wilson BLX works because the frames has a dampened feel, sure but that line got silicone in the handles so it got nothing to do with the gimmick..

The only gimmick that I felt did what it was somewhat supposed to, is the prince "holes", it swings faster due to less air resistance (minimal difference), but did it make a difference?.. No!.

The only technology that changed tennis was going from wood and alu frames to graphite.
 
user92626 said:
That's because you' have a short sight. :) If you set your sight a little longer, say, 30 years, you can clearly see that you can't and won't use a racket that was made 30 years ago, right? On the same line, it's safe to say that most rackets today, as perfectly good as they are now, will be dirt cheap junks 30 years from now. So, what exactly changes? :)
Click to expand...

Well, no. I play just about as well with my Kennex Black Aces built around 1981 or an old Prince Graphite as my MG Prestige Pros, probably at 98% - and that only because he head size is pretty small. In a competitive match, I would be at a disadvantage with a wood or metal racket, but there is little difference between a graphite racket from 30 years ago and one made presently. Most pros rackets don't have any of these technologies.
 
What I'd like to know is this...
20 years ago, Pros were winning with PS 6.0's, Dunlop 200G MW's, POGs. Pros were using PS 6.1's.

If those raquets were able to perform at the highest level in tennis, is there any reason whatsoever to think that a typical 5.0 or 5.5 player can't compete with them today? Does someone with a current Babolat Pure whatever have any appreciable advantage against an equally rated and skilled player who uses a raquet that's 20 years old?

From what I've read here, Tennis Maverick never said he endorsed a gimmick, he just stated that he could feel what a racquet manufacturer claimed it delivered. It happens. Sometimes things come along that actually do change performance characteristics. My question is do we really have to have racquets that do that? What does a Pure Drive or Youtek offer that a 20 year old simple graphite racquet cannot?
 
tennisnoob3 said:
i'm not sure if pro-stock racquets actually have the technology in them.
Click to expand...

so if the pros rackets today are really pro-stock rackets based from their "high school" rackets but don't have the "high school" technology, then whats in them? ex.- if a pro is using a Head Radical Twin Tube Tour (1995) pro-stock racket, then whats in it if there's no twin tube technology?
 
TheLambsheadrep said:
so if the pros rackets today are really pro-stock rackets based from their "high school" rackets but don't have the "high school" technology, then whats in them? ex.- if a pro is using a Head Radical Twin Tube Tour (1995) pro-stock racket, then whats in it if there's no twin tube technology?
Click to expand...

Now that...is a very intelligent and clever question!
 
Last edited:
TheLambsheadrep said:
so if the pros rackets today are really pro-stock rackets based from their "high school" rackets but don't have the "high school" technology, then whats in them? ex.- if a pro is using a Head Radical Twin Tube Tour (1995) pro-stock racket, then whats in it if there's no twin tube technology?
Click to expand...
Theres only like 1000 threads on this subject!.
Every company offers "old" discontinued models to the pros, in that case its basically a stock frame. So of course a radical twin tube will have twin tube tech..
Head offer their pros the TGK line, its simply pro stock versions of the retail model, but without gimmicks. Pure graphite frames like the ones used before they came up with fancy gimmicks. I used TGK 238.5 a pro stock version of YTPP, and yes it plays different from the retail version, better in all aspects and clearly made from better materials. I got a pair of Dolgopolov´s PS 6.0 95 with K-factor PJ and they play like the original 6.0 but QC is better than normal. They weight exactly the same.
 
Don S said:
What does a Pure Drive or Youtek offer that a 20 year old simple graphite racquet cannot?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for GT or Youtek, but I can speak for Volkl/BB technology. I was always skeptical of technological upgrades as well, as racket manufacturers are in the business of competing with other brands and selling rackets. Therefore, they're forced into research, design, and new products. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. For instance, I've hit the Dunlop 300 series for 6-7 years, and I'll state, imo, that the 300G, with hotmelt carbon and kevlar yoke, would outperform any of the Aerogel technology---although the "feel" was enhanced in the Aerogel, but not the ball quality in my opponents court. However, after hitting a C-10 Pro, I've become permanently addicted to the feel of Volkl/BB frames--to a point of no return. So take the "feel" of the C-10 Pro, which for those who like it, is unmatched among any racket brands. However, I would challenge any player who loves that "feel" and wants to maintain it, but who also wants to get rid of that "wobble" in the head and to maximize ball quality and dwell time to try the Delta Core technology from Boris Becker---either the London or the Legend. Additionally, although the BB line is somewhat "new," compare the London or Legend against the BB 11. You get more control, forgiveness, dwell, and no loss in power from the newer technology. All this to say that I believe racket companies are seriously trying to make better sticks; sometimes they get it right, and other times they don't. Boris Becker got it right.

big bang said:
Theres only like 1000 threads on this subject!.
Every company offers "old" discontinued models to the pros, in that case its basically a stock frame. So of course a radical twin tube will have twin tube tech..
Click to expand...

I disagree. In one those "1000 threads" of which you speak, I remember reading that James Blake could not come to any sort of agreement with Dunlop last year because they could no longer match his "old school" technology with any of their newer stuff. According to what I read, they could get their hands on the graphite, but they couldn't reproduce the same "feel" for Blake, even with the same mold. The layup of the frame would inevitably be different. I don't know if this is just a Dunlop problem or Dunlop's unwillingness to compromise for and accommodate a "declining" and "aging" player, but everything they gave him to try he declined. If this is any indication of the direction of racket manufacturing, then we can conclude that the traditional graphite frames may soon be extinct.
 
Last edited:
Pneumated1 said:
I can't speak for GT or Youtek, but I can speak for Volkl/BB technology. I was always skeptical of technological upgrades as well, as racket manufacturers are in the business of competing with other brands and selling rackets. Therefore, they're forced into research, design, and new products. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. For instance, I've hit the Dunlop 300 series for 6-7 years, and I'll state, imo, that the 300G, with hotmelt carbon and kevlar yolk, would outperform any of the Aerogel technology---although the "feel" was enhanced in the Aerogel, but not the ball quality in my opponents court. However, after hitting a C-10 Pro, I've become permanently addicted to the feel of Volkl/BB frames--to a point of no return. So take the "feel" of the C-10 Pro, which for those who like it, is unmatched among any racket brands. However, I would challenge any player who loves that "feel" and wants to maintain it, but who also wants to get rid of that "wobble" in the head and to maximize ball quality and dwell time to try the Delta Core technology from Boris Becker---either the London or the Legend. Additionally, although the BB line is somewhat "new," compare the London or Legend against the BB 11. You get more control, forgiveness, dwell, and no loss in power from the newer technology. All this to say that I believe racket companies are seriously trying to make better sticks; sometimes they get it right, and other times they don't. Boris Becker got it right.



I disagree. In one those "1000 threads" of which you speak, I remember reading that James Blake could not come to any sort of agreement with Dunlop last year because they could no longer match his "old school" technology with any of their newer stuff. According to what I read, they could get their hands on the graphite, but they couldn't reproduce the same "feel" for Blake, even with the same mold. The layup of the frame would inevitably be different. I don't know if this is just a Dunlop problem or Dunlop's unwillingness to compromise for and accommodate a "declining" and "aging" player, but everything they gave him to try he declined. If this is any indication of the direction of racket manufacturing, then we can conclude that the traditional graphite frames may soon be extinct.
Click to expand...

The problem with Blake´s frames is different. He wanted to keep using the same couple of frames over and over, so of course they became flexier and felt different from the new ones dunlop made for him. Dunlop couldnt copy that feel, but thats what he wanted!. Same mold + same graphite = same frame..
 
big bang said:
The problem with Blake´s frames is different. He wanted to keep using the same couple of frames over and over, so of course they became flexier and felt different from the new ones dunlop made for him. Dunlop couldnt copy that feel, but thats what he wanted!. Same mold + same graphite = same frame..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do remember now that what he was after was the "feel" of his older, more flexible frames. However, I also remember someone mentioning that while Dunlop could obviously create a graphite racket, they couldn't replicate the layup of his older frames. So my question would be if it's the "same graphite" then why does he refuse the new frame now but not several years ago--if all things are equal--whenever he started hitting his particular pro stock? If at one point he began hitting a racket, saying, "yeah, this works," and if they supposedly create the same racket with the same mold years later, and he says, "no, this doesn't work," then I have to conclude that it's not the same frame. What different? I honestly don't know.
 
Pneumated1 said:
Yeah, I do remember now that what he was after was the "feel" of his older, more flexible frames. However, I also remember someone mentioning that while Dunlop could obviously create a graphite racket, they couldn't replicate the layup of his older frames. So my question would be if it's the "same graphite" then why does he refuse the new frame now but not several years ago--if all things are equal--whenever he started hitting his particular pro stock? If at one point he began hitting a racket, saying, "yeah, this works," and if they supposedly create the same racket with the same mold years later, and he says, "no, this doesn't work," then I have to conclude that it's not the same frame. What different? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...

New frames feel different from "used" ones. I tried this myself some years ago, after playing the same bunch of PSC´s for around 15 years I was offered a couple of new ones. But somehow they felt different and not quite as comfortable, I still pick the old ones for matches..
 
TennisMaverick said:
Tennis players are very traditional; very stubborn; in-particular, tend to be very tied into being emotionally comfortable; and aren't accustomed to having to overcome adversity. It is an inbred club of predominately well-to-do people, whose standards of living are such that there is little need or want for anything. So little issues become extremely magnified. Become a volunteer at an event and in 10 minutes, you will begin to dislike most players, parents, and their entourage.

For example, it's almost impossible to buy a highly ranked junior a birthday or Xmas gift, when they already have credit cards, iPads, iPods, iPhones, etc., all since they were very young, if the product was available, and convertible BMW's the day they turn 17 and get their license. Since they only compete against other individuals like themselves, they just play; they don't have to overcome any obstacles, and, they don't have to play. At anytime, they can easily say, "I'm just going to start hanging with my friends, I can't deal with this anymore," and that comes from even top nationally or ITF ranked kids. When they turn pro, they still have the same mentality. "I'm working too hard and not getting the rewards. I can work for my father's buddy and make six-figures my first year."

The traveling, winning a little, losing a lot--which they didn't do as juniors, training, getting hurt, pressure to defend points, no girlfriend, etc., easily gets too much for many of these guys. That is why non-American players rule in ITF junior events and our pros have difficulty getting to the Final Eight of GS events. It is no surprise that over the past 35 years, all of our best players were either immigrants or born from immigrants--Sampras, Chang, Capriati, Agassi, the Mayer bros, Vitas, Seles, MaryJoe--or they were from working or middle class families--Serena/Venus, Connors, Chrissie, Blake, just to name a few. There are a few exceptions, such as Roddick, but his family will tell you that his ADD made him laser focused-in on tennis and incapable of sitting behind a school desk.

Bottom Line: Most players are too privileged; they don't have to put themselves through all of the uncomfortable crap. There is a low pain threshold. They expect only to train and to win. Period. Hardship and emotional stress isn't supposed to be in the picture; most can't take it. If you yell at a tennis player as a coach, like they do in other sports, you'll be out of a job. Tennis isn't boxing, football, basketball, or baseball, where many of these pros would be in jail or working in a Wal-Mart if it wasn't for them being a pro athlete. That's a very different type of desire and emotional make-up. If USTA Player Development wants to really develop players, they should deprive the kids of everything and make them make do, but our current culture of helicopter parents and coaches who don't want to lose a penny, will not hear of it.
Click to expand...
Those were perceptive observations of yours about the origins of our best tennis players. The Sampras reference threw me because he's from toney Palos Verdes on the west coast, but I know his dad was an immigrant. I would also add the example of Arthur Ashe who grew up on public courts and was of the middle class.

Sounds like you've had too much contact with the spoiled brat players and their families. Which would explain in part the bile you harbor. I don't think it's all due to a New Yawker's state of mind. I'm not chastizing you for it. I'd go homicidal having to deal with these hotshot juniors and their families.

It's not surprising that you're at your most equanimous when dispensing technical advice. I would just caution you to not give into the temptation of answering every shot across the bow or else you may flame out like some of our previous posters.
 
big bang said:
New frames feel different from "used" ones. I tried this myself some years ago, after playing the same bunch of PSC´s for around 15 years I was offered a couple of new ones. But somehow they felt different and not quite as comfortable, I still pick the old ones for matches..
Click to expand...

flex decreases as you string the racquet over time/ play with it more
 
ok, I don't really want to weigh in to the debate too much other than to say I still have my old 630s and I took them out for a hit for comparison with my current Speed MP 18 x 20s last week. I learned 2 things, and they both apply only to me.

1. The 630s are still a lovely hit, solid, sweet and powerful.

2. the Speeds are better. Just as solid, but more punch and a little bit quicker in my hands (well, they are lighter, duh!)


So, that's that. Oh, and I had a hit with Tomic's racquet the other night and it seems he is using retail YT Radicals!

and one last thing. TMav? Give it up, BB clearly doesn't understand the term 'frame of reference' and thinks you are talking about a racquet!

BB? 'frame of reference' means a common experience from which comparisons can be drawn, has nothing to do with tennis racquets...

*breathes
 
oh, one more thing, 'feeling the youtek'

I dunno, maybe, it certainly sounds different when you really hammer one, a sharper crack, but I'm not totally convinced I can 'feel' the difference on a drop or touch slice or something...

I could 'feel' the flexpoint on a prestige I used to have, and I really, really DIDN'T like it!
 
tennisnoob3 said:
have you seen d3o before? its truly no gimmick on its own.

if the d3o is in there in a somewhat substantial amount, you could probably feel it. multiple people say the youtek is somewhat "feel-able", but i can see how it could get into your head. i'm not saying its highly unlikely, but more substantial that most other techs.

if you haven't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grq2NzI9nNI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDeJ7rLUYU&feature=related
Click to expand...

I have not only seen the orange thing, but actually put my hand into it and pressed it in a Head demo at my pro shop. Even then, I could hardly feel the "stiffening." I was a given a mallet - first hit soft, subsequently harder and harder feel was what was supposed to happen. I think it barely happened. Then I read that it is being used in police helmets in the UK.

And of course we don't know how much of it is in the racquet - a miniscule amount or something that actually makes a difference. I think you can guess what I think is the answer.

The feeling is in the Head (pun intended).
 
HackersRUs said:
ok, I don't really want to weigh in to the debate too much other than to say I still have my old 630s and I took them out for a hit for comparison with my current Speed MP 18 x 20s last week. I learned 2 things, and they both apply only to me.

1. The 630s are still a lovely hit, solid, sweet and powerful.

2. the Speeds are better. Just as solid, but more punch and a little bit quicker in my hands (well, they are lighter, duh!)


So, that's that. Oh, and I had a hit with Tomic's racquet the other night and it seems he is using retail YT Radicals!

and one last thing. TMav? Give it up, BB clearly doesn't understand the term 'frame of reference' and thinks you are talking about a racquet!

BB? 'frame of reference' means a common experience from which comparisons can be drawn, has nothing to do with tennis racquets...

*breathes
Click to expand...
I know exactly what it means, thats why I told TM to pick any of the classics because I hit with all of them, but Im sure he hasnt..
 
big bang said:
Theres only like 1000 threads on this subject!.
Every company offers "old" discontinued models to the pros, in that case its basically a stock frame. So of course a radical twin tube will have twin tube tech..
Head offer their pros the TGK line, its simply pro stock versions of the retail model, but without gimmicks. Pure graphite frames like the ones used before they came up with fancy gimmicks. I used TGK 238.5 a pro stock version of YTPP, and yes it plays different from the retail version, better in all aspects and clearly made from better materials. I got a pair of Dolgopolov´s PS 6.0 95 with K-factor PJ and they play like the original 6.0 but QC is better than normal. They weight exactly the same.
Click to expand...

i was just asking based off what the other person said, and now I dont understand what pro rackets can have in them if you say "simply pro stock versions of the retail model, but without gimmicks," whats left over after taking out the "gimmick" technology? so are rackets with pure graphite better than whats out there now, and what does TGK stand for?
 
Dated technology.
the POG and ProStaff are still considered two of the greatest racquets of all time, their technology? Nothing. Graphite, Graphite/Kevlar.
 
TheLambsheadrep said:
i was just asking based off what the other person said, and now I dont understand what pro rackets can have in them if you say "simply pro stock versions of the retail model, but without gimmicks," whats left over after taking out the "gimmick" technology? so are rackets with pure graphite better than whats out there now, and what does TGK stand for?
Click to expand...
The Head pro stock frames looks identical to retail, but is made of pure graphite, no gimmicks at all!. Most ppl agree that they are made from higher quality materials and that they feel very different from the retail models, only thing they have in common is the mold they came from. Pro stock frames comes very light so they can be customized to a players individual specs.
I´ll let you decide whats better, gimmicks or pure high quality graphite.. But its pretty clear what the pros prefer!.
 
big bang said:
The Head pro stock frames looks identical to retail, but is made of pure graphite, no gimmicks at all!. Most ppl agree that they are made from higher quality materials and that they feel very different from the retail models, only thing they have in common is the mold they came from. Pro stock frames comes very light so they can be customized to a players individual specs.
I´ll let you decide whats better, gimmicks or pure high quality graphite.. But its pretty clear what the pros prefer!.
Click to expand...

that makes sense, thanks. so how much graphite do you think is actually in the radical twin tube tours that i have? and again, what does TGK stand for? thanks
 
TheLambsheadrep said:
that makes sense, thanks. so how much graphite do you think is actually in the radical twin tube tours that i have? and again, what does TGK stand for? thanks
Click to expand...
Cant say for sure about your Rads, but as far as I remember they didnt put anything besides graphite in them. Twin tube was just a different construction. TGK is a mystery, noone really knows, but head got all sorts of weird codes for their products, same goes for their pallets. Only racquet code that makes sense is PT - pro tour..
 
Maroon_Tenniskid said:
The only Technology so far that I can tell, is the Youtek d3o. I can really feel the racket stiffen up for hard shots, and soften for the soft touch shots. It doesn't have a HUGE effect, but I know it's not 100% marketing BS and I think it's pretty cool haha.
Click to expand...

True. I demoed some of the YouTek line a few months back and actually felt that too. It seems real not just a bogus claim. I just received another demo shipment of some YouTek again and I'm gonna play today and see if I feel it still or it was just the so-called placebo effect last time.
 
I did not read all the post but many. Not sure if anyone mentioned this but many people like to go back to simpler technologies in frames. Many hold in high praise the Pro Kennex Redondo and Black Ace which are under the Heritiage series of racquets.

These are simple old school racquets made of 100% graphite with no special technology added. I was in high school in the early to mid '80s and if I'm not mistaken Pro Kennex was pretty popular and I think but not sure that the Black Ace was around in those days so I guess they never stopped making it or they may have stopped but started again due to the demand of a simpler racquet. People in the '80s played just fine so maybe the old school racquets are just fine without the special tech now.

The new tech now might be helpful though in upping one's game performance, who knows but it's up to you.

I will say is I played with the old early '80s Head Arthur Ashe I have and loved the feel and performance of it. The head is small though. I used this racquet in the '80s and I'm convinced if I did not stop using this one over the years I'd hit just fine with the small head. But now I'm spoiled with a larger head racquet. If Head put out an Arthru Ashe tribute racquet designed like the old Ashe line but with a bigger head like a 95 to even 93 I would buy it in a New York Minute. I'm pretty sure if I had an AA with a bigger head size I'd find the perfect racquet. Old tech is not bad at all.
 
big bang said:
I know exactly what it means, thats why I told TM to pick any of the classics because I hit with all of them, but Im sure he hasnt..
Click to expand...

Forrest, check this out:

http://www. lec. com/listProduct.asp?product=Premium&family=Power-Translator&Affiliate=TT0062

Power Translator Premium

Plug-in: "common frame of reference"

Hope that it is helpful.
 
I never see any talk about the Ncode. There is another example of racquets a couple generations back being abandoned for the latest and greatest.
 
I do think that some new technologies are relevant. Not so much that it will significantly improve one's game, but in improving the strength and other attributes of the racquet.
For example, I can definitely feel the difference between my Wilson ProStaff Classic 6.1 and Wilson KBlade Tour with Karophite. Even though the flex rating is lower on the KBlade Tour, it feels stiffer; and when the racquet hits the court it sounds different than most other racquets -- it sounds more like a light metal hitting the court. As you can see in the diagram below, the nano technology is for real.

http://s1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa478/letort86/?action=view&current=KAROPHITE_IMG.jpg
 
I do think that some new technologies are relevant. Not so much that it will significantly improve one's game, but in improving the strength and other attributes of the racquet.
For example, I can definitely feel the difference between my Wilson ProStaff Classic 6.1 and Wilson KBlade Tour with Karophite. Even though the flex rating is lower on the KBlade Tour, it feels stiffer; and when the racquet hits the court it sounds different than most other racquets -- it sounds more like a light metal hitting the court. As you can see in the diagram below, the nano technology is for real.

letort86
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Racquet technology continuity
Replies
10
Views
893
Racketdesign
Racketdesign
Z
I've Noticed Something About Babolat.
Replies
11
Views
1K
babolat king
babolat king
U
Racquet Technologies: Real vs Marketing
Replies
43
Views
5K
slice bh compliment
S
DavaiMarat
The reason classics are classics
Replies
38
Views
3K
Brooklyn_bum
B
B
New Technology
Replies
11
Views
1K
b.
B
Back
Top